I have a question regarding the wording of a portion of Sabrina's Law to legislation in Ontario regarding schools and their policies regrading anaphylaxis.
Section (2)3. states that not only does the school need to train school employees but also others who are in direct contact with pupils on a regular basis. If a school regularly allows lunch programs in which the students can sign up for an extracuricular activity at an extra cost, does this constitute direct contact with the students on a regular basis?
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_ ... nID=38%3A1

Quote:

Establishment of policy
2. (1) Every board shall establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy in accordance with this section.
Contents of anaphylactic policy
(2) The anaphylactic policy shall include the following:
1. Strategies that reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school areas.
2. A communication plan for the dissemination of information on life-threatening allergies to parents, pupils and employees.
3. Regular training on dealing with life-threatening allergies for all employees and others who are in direct contact with pupils on a regular basis.
4. A requirement that every school principal develop an individual plan for each pupil who has an anaphylactic allergy.
5. A requirement that every school principal ensure that, upon registration, parents, guardians and pupils shall be asked to supply information on life-threatening allergies.
6. A requirement that every school principal maintain a file for each anaphylactic pupil of current treatment and other information, including a copy of any prescriptions and instructions from the pupil's physician or nurse and a current emergency contact list.

Well, I think so. I know in BC that sort of wording is included to ensure that volunteers would have the ability to be trained. What the ramifications would be are not clear to me, eg - school staff have a duty of care to respond to an emergency, but volunteers would probably be guided by the Good Samaritans Act, which I think basically says "you should do your best to be a good human", if someone needs help, but I think it is in place to protect do-gooders in cases where they try, but do something wrong, rather than requiring them to act. I am not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum